Bailouts for banks and insurance companies.
Federal bailouts and related spending proposed by the Obama Administration now total 8 trillion dollars, according to the American Institute for Economic Research.

To pay for exploding federal spending, Obama’s Congressional allies are mulling huge tax increases. Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Cal.) wants a 90 percent tax rate. Obama has spent more in his first 50 days, by far, than George Bush spent on the entire Iraq War. That includes a pork-filled $800 billion stimulus package that deceptively repealed welfare reform, and that the Congressional Budget Office admits will cut the size of America’s economy in the long run by exploding the national debt.

The bailouts and new spending will benefit many undeserving people who are well-to-do. The Treasury Department’s recently announced mortgage bailout will bail out irresponsible mortgage borrowers with big homes, high incomes and normal mortgage payments, covering mortgages up to $729,750.

People are suffering across much of the country, but not here in Washington, D.C., where the White House is throwing lavish parties and well-to-do residents are being enriched at taxpayer expense by Obama’s expansion of government. The expected hiring of up to 250,000 new bureaucrats by the Obama Administration is helping to prop up home values in Washington’s inner suburbs, while siphoning money out of less fortunate regions of the country. The bureaucrats’ pay will likely be much better than that of the far-more-numerous private sector employees whose jobs are being lost as a result of Obama’s deficit spending, which will crowd out private investment. Expensive restaurants and sellers of luxury goods in Washington, D.C. still seem to have plenty of business. My spend-thrift liberal neighbors, who have a second mortgage, are spending as conspicuously and prodigiously as ever.

The $800 billion stimulus package also subsidizes groups that helped spawn the mortgage crisis, like ACORN, which promoted “liar loans” and engaged in financial fraud and vote fraud.

An ally of ACORN, the Congressman Barney Frank, (D-Massachusetts) helped spawn the mortgage crisis by blocking needed reforms of the bankrupt government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and backing “affordable housing” mandates that resulted in risky mortgage loans. But now this hypocrite wants a one-sided inquisition into who caused the crisis!

http://www.openmarket.org/2009/03/08/8-trillion-in-bailouts-undeserving-rich-benefit/

The **potential** of green jobs:

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/greenpicks/231/what-the-green-collar-economy-means-for-you.html

So, what exactly is a “green collar” job, and more importantly, how do you get one? There’s no definitive term just yet, but here’s the short answer according to Pete Altman at the Natural Resources Defense Council: “A green job is just like a regular job only the result of what you are making or doing is good for the environment.”

And, it turns out that what’s good for the environment is going to be good for America’s workforce. A reportfrom the University of Amherst Massachusetts says that a $100 billion investment in green programs would create about two million jobs over two years. About 750,000 green jobs already exist, according to a 2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors’ report.

compare to:

The **actual nature** of green jobs:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123336500319935517.html

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was all smiles in 2006 when he signed into law the toughest anti-global-warming regulations of any state. Mr. Schwarzenegger and his green supporters boasted that the regulations would steer California into a prosperous era of green jobs, renewable energy, and technological leadership. Instead, since 2007 — in anticipation of the new mandates — California has led the nation in job losses.

The regulations created a cap-and-trade system, similar to proposed federal global-warming measures, by limiting the CO2 that utilities, trucking companies and other businesses can emit, and imposed steep new taxes on companies that exceed the caps. Since energy is an input in everything that’s produced, this will raise the cost of production inside California’s borders.
hater police……..Did you ignore the fact that a “plan” similar to Obama’s “green jobs” plan was implemented in California in 2006. The results: massive failure.
chote……..”The reason most Republicans put down “green” jobs is that very few Republicans stand to make money off of them.”

The reason it failed in California is PRECISELY because it didn’t make any money. It simply put the state farther in debt.

Tent cities springing up all over America are filling with the homeless unemployed from the worst economy since the 1930s. While Americans live in tents, the Obama government has embarked on a $1 billion crash program to build a mega-embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, to rival the one the Bush government built in Baghdad, Iraq In the small town of Vassalboro, Maine, a few ******* waitress jobs in a coffee house drew 150 applicants. Women in this small town are so desperate for jobs that they are reduced to undressing for their neighbors’ amusement.

.http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090805_expiring_economy.htm

Last updated at 12:35 PM on 06th March 2009

* Comments (80)
* Add to My Stories

A century and a half ago it was at the centre of the Californian gold rush, with hopeful prospectors pitching their tents along the banks of the American River.
Today, tents are once again springing up in the city of Sacramento. But this time it is for people with no hope and no prospects.
With America’s economy in freefall and its housing market in crisis, California’s state capital has become home to a tented city for the dispossessed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159677/Pictured-The-credit-crunch-tent-city-returned-haunt-America.html

Tent cities and shelters from California to Massachusetts report growing demand from the newly homeless. The National Alliance to End Homelessness predicted in January that the recession would force 1.5 million more people into homelessness over the next two years. Already, “tens of thousands” have lost their homes, Alliance President Nan Roman says.

The $1.5 billion in new federal stimulus funds for homelessness prevention will help people pay rent, utility bills, moving costs or security deposits, she says, but it won’t be enough.

“We’re hearing from shelter providers that the shelters are overflowing, filled to capacity,” says Ellen Bassuk, president of the National Center on Family Homelessness. “The number of families on the streets has dramatically increased.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-04-new-homeless_N.htm

Friday, July 31, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives

Two months ago the valley’s largest and most visible tent city appeared headed for a turnaround, with bushels of money and hordes of social service workers coming to help the homeless.

Now the few remaining tents along Foremaster Lane will disappear within weeks, not because the dozens of men and women in them had somewhere better to go, but because Metro Police asked them to leave, an extension of a plan to “take back the area,” Lt. Ted Snodgrass said.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/31/police-breaking-homeless-corridor/

The facts are according to the last US Census that the states who live off the Governments Tax dollars the most are all Republican voting States. While Republicans can tell us this is not true, the facts are scientific and fully documented and the facts do not lie. Here are the top States using Federal money:
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

Funny but the States who vote with the Democrats get the least amount of Tax payers hard earned money:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

I am sure people have posted this before but it always nice to see the multitude of Republicans rationalizing why these facts are against them. They might say that is the Democrats in their State but that is statistically impossible and does not hold any water. Facts are facts and why do these facts all clearly show the the Republican States and their citizens live higher on the hog with working Americans money than do the Democrats. Could it be that these people in these States are less educated and do not have as high paying jobs? Could it be that these people in these states just do not like to work?

One more fact. Whites amount to more Welfare recipients in these States than do blacks.
Lemontre says:that’s only 20 states fly your only painting the picture you want us to tell us

Yes it is 20, the top ten and the bottom ten….I think the facts paint the picture pretty well!
Great link. Thanks
Appalachian American: These States do not pay more, these figures show states who got more than they put in
Patrick G asks ” Do you have a source”?

Yes, the Census and here is Mark H’s link that also shows these figures from 2005 survey.

People on welfare are getting free cars in Massachusetts from the govt. They get free auto insurance, repairs, and title registration fees as well- all paid by the tax payers. This is not sharing the wealth- its giving it away! Do you think these people are being tested for drug or alcohol in their system before being given a car? I would hope so! Do you think they have too send in proof that they have been applying for jobs as well?
Fed Govt- added the money for this program- its not the state paying for those cars- its all tax payers!

All of the “polls” say Barack Hussein Obama is winning. This is based on pollsters calling people, etc. But how come myself or any of the dozens of people I know who are voting for McCain have never been called and asked who WE are voting for.

Is it because we have jobs and are at work from 7:30 in the morning and don’t get home until 6 or 7 PM?

Is it because we don’t live in a place where most of the people are “polled”, i.e- San Fransisco, Massachusetts, Vermont?

Is it because they don’t want Obama to be completely embarassed in a huge landslide by making people think he actually has a chance?

Or is it some other reason?

Because almost everyone I speak to in Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa said they didn’t even notice anything change, and if anything happened, the wedding industry grew creating more jobs and more revenue.

One example:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmqpPfZ_Bx4hwOP4Sa_kZ.3sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070927173329AA5p2n9

Forget Kyoto
We curb emissions better, so why imitate Europe?

By David Freddoso

Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R., Ga.) — one a washed-up former presidential candidate, the other a rehabilitated potential future candidate — engaged in the sort of rough-and-tumble, no-rules debate that Gingrich has always talked about with relish. It was a high-brow argument about global warming, lasting 90 minutes and with no restrictions, between two intelligent politicians — the kind of serious debate that few of our modern presidential candidates could survive.

The debate was remarkable in several ways, not the least of which was its confirmation of Kerry’s attempt, with a new book and a series of appearances, to piggy-back off of Al Gore’s environmentalist movie-star success.

But that is not all that the senator from Massachusetts is borrowing from Gore. Like his newly admired predecessor, the 2004 presidential wannabe has affected that air of national scolding that marked Gore’s presentation before two congressional panels last month. As with Gore, this involved the inevitable comparison of America to Europe on their respective environmental records. Americans, Kerry asserted, should feel ashamed for being such a dirty, nasty lot when it comes to carbon emissions.

“The Europeans are taking this more seriously,” Kerry said of their quest to reduce carbon emissions, and thus (they hope) diminish global warming. “They’re struggling to meet the Kyoto standards and we’re not. We’re living outrageously, as an outlaw, outside of it. We’re not trying.”

The message is that the United States is the Big Bad Wolf of global warming. In particular, we don’t take the environment seriously because we did not sign the Kyoto Treaty.

Greener than Europe?
Then again, Kerry might want to read up on those environmental records before he starts shaming us all. As guilty as we like to feel in this country, we can hold our head up when it comes to greenhouse-gas pollution. It isn’t just that Europe is failing to meet its Kyoto obligations, having increased emissions since 1993. It’s much better than that.

The fact is that, in the years after we elected George W. Bush — a man who would presumably knock his own grandmother into a vat of toxic sludge if it allowed him to contaminate another pristine wilderness area — we have soundly beaten the European Union in curbing emissions growth. This despite our having much more population growth and a much stronger economy.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that U.S. carbon-equivalent emissions rose by 1.3 percent between 2000 and 2004. During the same period, the U.S. population grew by 4 percent, and our economy grew by 19.5 percent.

In the 25 European nations reporting under the Kyoto Protocol, carbon equivalent emissions rose by 2.2 percent during the same period (and by 2.4 percent in the 15 Western European nations). The EU-25 population, meanwhile, grew by 1.6 percent and their collective economy grew by just under 7 percent.

Between 2000 and 2004, America had more than twice the population and economic growth of Europe and a little more than half of Europe’s growth in carbon emissions. That’s not so bad, is it? Should we really be looking up to Europe? One would hope that environmental consciousness is not about signing treaties or setting bold goals, but rather about decreasing emissions. That is where we beat everyone.

It is true that America still emits more carbon and its equivalents than any other nation on earth — about 25 percent of the world’s emissions. But this is not the best measurement of how we are doing. As Christopher Horner points out in his book A Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, our citizens are not just lifeless receptacles that consume and then pollute. Rather, we produce things that lead to human flourishing and prosperity, and in America, we happen to produce a lot more of this than anyone else. With 5 percent of the world’s population, we produce 25 percent of its wealth. Compared to Europe, we produce more jobs with higher wages, and we enjoy an economy that is 42.5 percent wealthier per person. Year after year, we leave Europe farther behind.

Americans should want the rest of the world to enjoy the same prosperity we do. Unless we want a global warming action-plan that simply ignores the costs of eliminating causes of carbon emissions — a plan that forces us to stop flying in airplanes, driving cars, heating and cooling our homes, and possibly even using computers — we should be factoring in that cost by measuring our greenhouse pollution against our economic production. And by this measure, America is not doing so badly.

At 0.55 metric tons of carbon per thousand dollars of GDP (our “carbon intensity”) in 2004, the United States fits right in with Europe, somewhere between the Netherlands (0.63 tons) and Belgium (0.54 tons), well below Estonia (0.81 tons) but well above France (0.26), which generates much of its electricity using carbon-free nuclear power. More importantly, we have been reducing our emissions by this measure. Our carbon intensity has decreased by 7 percent since 2000 — larger than the EU-25 reduction of 4.5 percent during the same period.

Between our existing regulations and individual, market-driven decisions to adopt more energy-efficient (and cleaner) technologies, we are successfully containing our carbon footprint while still enjoying prosperity. That may not be enough to save the planet from hellfire, but if the global-warming alarmists are right, then nothing will be. We are doomed anyway unless we adopt nuclear power, build hundreds of large dams, or find some other cheap and viable energy source.

“You want to impose, by government coercion, a standard,” Gingrich pointed out to Kerry in the debate. He went on to argue that Kerry’s idea of a cap-and-trade system to control emissions is a loser — that an incentive-based plan offering tax credits would be less painful and get quicker results than government compulsion.

He may be right, but the real question is whether either plan is necessary. Even under the Bush administration, which supposedly does nothing about pollution and wants to despoil our planet, we have managed to hold down annual emissions increases and reduce our emissions intensity better than most countries that signed Kyoto. We are seeing better results than European countries that have had to cut back electricity production and lose jobs in a futile attempt to meet the treaty’s arbitrary standards — standards that many environmentalists argue are not nearly stringent enough to make a difference anyway.

The idea that the fanfare of a government initiative — a treaty or a new set of regulations or even a market-distorting tax-credit — would make us any more environmentally friendly as a nation is absurd. Put more simply, it was worth not signing Kyoto if only to save the paper.

At work someone mentioned that there was a bill trying to be passed in Massachusetts which states that children up to age 26 who dont have health insurrance can be covered under their parents. Does anyone have any more info on this? It would be awesome bc it is so hard to find a job with benefits in massage.

“If the election were held today, Hillary Clinton would win (Ohio),” he said. “Those who say (she) can’t win the White House because she can’t win a key swing state like Ohio might rethink their assumption.”
The survey by the Connecticut college shows her narrowly topping the two leading GOP contenders: former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani by 3 points and Arizona Sen. John McCain by 4 points.
The Clinton campaign immediately touted the poll results in a news release.
“If Hillary leads in Ohio at this point in the race– the key state that gave the last election to the Republicans– then this confirms that Hillary can win and is today winning,” said Clinton chief strategist and pollster Mark Penn. “She is the strongest Democrat in what was the most difficult state.”
Among Buckeye State Republicans, it’s Giuliani 30, McCain 22, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich 11 and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 4. (The margin of error for the Republicans is 4.6 points.)
The entire telephone poll of 1,305 Ohio voters Jan. 23 through Friday has an error margin of 2.7 percentage points.
The survey contained continuing bad news for President Bush. Only 34 percent support his plan for a surge of nearly 22,000 troops to Iraq. Just 31 percent approve how Bush is handling Iraq, and 37 now say going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do. Only 27 percent say the country is headed in the right direction.
Overall, the president’s job approval rating remains at 34 percent, the same as in December.
Despite Clinton’s lead, the poll underscores how she polarizes voters.
She is viewed favorably by 49 percent but unfavorably by 38 percent. Only 10 percent haven’t formed an opinion.

http://360.yahoo.com/profile-iTamzzQ7d5k10iQtozl9aws-?cq=1

Lareddawg, Kerry did win Ohio, don’t you read any? Ohio was awarded to GW Bush by the bias supreme court, That court also ruled against States Rights.
Nick9399, you miss the point, this is a Republican State, has been for 16 years. Plus 2.5 points is a landslide victory for any Democrat. We have the first Democrat in the Governors office in 16 years also. We also got rid of Mike DeWine who was a failure just like GW Bush.